Time limit (108, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 433, 771, 772, 773, 774, 775, 776, 777, 778, 781,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Time limit
Total judgments found: 335
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 | next >
Judgment 1148
72nd Session, 1992
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 12-13
Extract:
Having submitted a claim for the refund of the costs of an item, the complainant first received a statement from the Sickness Fund which alluded to "non-refundable items". Only later did a note indicate which items were being refused. Eurocontrol contends that the time limit ran from the date at which she got the original statement from the Fund, the later note having merely confirmed the earlier decision. "The argument fails. The cryptic allusion in the statement to 'non-refundable items' did not suffice to tell the complainant just what she was being refused. The 'act adversely affecting' her - to quote the Regulations - did not become specific until she got the [note] and so that is the date at which the time limit for her internal appeal began. [...] She acted in time."
Keywords:
confirmatory decision; decision; health insurance; medical expenses; refund; start of time limit; time limit;
Judgment 1141
72nd Session, 1992
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 20-21
Extract:
The complainant failed to file a rejoinder in the time limit set by the Registry but applied for an extension of the time limit on the grounds of communication difficulties. "The Tribunal cannot allow that application, which reached it when it was already in session. There is no detriment to the complainant's rights on that account since the pleadings the Tribunal has before it afford an adequate account of the material facts and the parties' arguments."
Keywords:
closure of written proceedings; delay; lack of injury; rejoinder; time limit;
Judgment 1140
72nd Session, 1992
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"The time limit for filing a complaint must be strictly respected and may be waived neither by the parties nor by the Tribunal: a heavy workload affords no valid excuse for failing to meet it. Since the complainant failed to lodge a timely complaint with the Tribunal [...] his claim became time- barred."
Keywords:
complaint; mandatory time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1132
72nd Session, 1992
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The case law makes it clear that time limits in rules on internal appeals must be strictly adhered to. The complainant did not comply with the requirements of the Service Regulations. Nor can he show any breach of good faith on the organisation's part. His complaint is therefore irreceivable under Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute because he has failed to exhaust the internal means of redress."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
exception; good faith; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; mandatory time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1122
71st Session, 1991
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The complaints are challenging pay slips [reflecting the so-called 'Eurocontrol reduction'], of which the latest date back to September 1989, and they were filed on 27 August 1990, long after the time limits had expired." They are irreceivable.
Keywords:
adjustment; complaint; payslip; receivability of the complaint; reduction of salary; salary; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1115
71st Session, 1991
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
As the complaint was filed on the ninetieth day after the date of notification of the impugned decision, it is receivable in keeping with Article 6, paragraph 3, of the Rules of court and Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(2) OF THE STATUTE;
ARTICLE 6(3) OF THE RULES
Keywords:
date of notification; decision; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time limit;
Judgment 1106
71st Session, 1991
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"According to Article VII(2) of the Tribunal's Statute a complaint will not be receivable unless filed within ninety days of the date of notification of the impugned decision, and Article 6(3) of the Rules of Court says that the 'date of despatch' of the complaint shall alone be taken into account." The complainant got notification of the impugned decision on 7 March 1990. Having waited until 6 June 1990 to post his complaint, he ran over the time limit by one day: the complaint is time-barred.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(2) OF THE STATUTE;
ARTICLE 6(3) OF THE RULES
Keywords:
date of notification; decision; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Consideration 3
Extract:
Time limits are a matter of objective fact. "If that were not so - whatever considerations of equity there might be - there could be no certainty in legal relations between the parties, and such certainty is the whole point and purpose of the time bar. An exception might be allowed only if the organization had acted in bad faith and misled the official. But in this case the organization did not."
Keywords:
complaint; exception; good faith; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1096
70th Session, 1991
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"A complaint is receivable under Article VII(3) where the administration fails to take any decision upon the claim within sixty days of the date of notification of it. Once an organisation has accepted the Tribunal's Statute it may not derogate from Article VII(3) by dint of internal rules of its own. The only difference Eurocontrol's own Staff Regulations may make is that it is estopped from objecting to receivability when, in reliance on its own time limit, a staff member has filed a complaint that would be receivable under its Staff Regulations but out of time under Article VII." (See also Judgment 1095.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(3) OF THE STATUTE
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1095
Keywords:
complaint; consequence; difference; failure to answer claim; good faith; iloat statute; precedence of rules; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time bar; time limit;
Consideration 12
Extract:
"Since the complaints have met the requirements of [article] VII [of the Tribunal's Statute] and the time limits therein the plea of irreceivability fails. The organisation's belated decisions expressly rejecting the appeals do not alter the substance of the dispute, which turns on the rejection to be inferred from expiry of the time limit in [Article]VII(3)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(3) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
complaint; express decision; failure to answer claim; implied decision; late decision; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 1095
70th Session, 1991
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
"A complaint is receivable under Article VII(3) where the administration fails to take any decision upon the claim within sixty days of the date of notification of it. Once an organisation has accepted the Tribunal's Statute it may not derogate from Article VII(3) by dint of internal rules of its own. The only difference Eurocontrol's own Staff Regulations may make is that it is estopped from objecting to receivability when, in reliance on its own time limit, a staff member has filed a complaint that would be receivable under its Staff Regulations but out of time under Article VII."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(3) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
complaint; consequence; difference; failure to answer claim; good faith; iloat statute; precedence of rules; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1091
70th Session, 1991
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant's appeal against delays in the procedure to regrade his post was rejected by a decision of 10 October 1989. The decision was confirmed in a memorandum of 4 December 1989. The time limit for appeal to the Tribunal ran from 10 October. The complaint having been filed on 2 March 1990 it is time-barred.
Keywords:
complaint; confirmatory decision; decision; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1082
70th Session, 1991
Intergovernmental Council of Copper Exporting Countries
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 17
Extract:
As stated in Judgment 873 (in re Da) the CIPEC Staff Regulations do not provide for internal appeal. But that does not preclude the organisation's entertaining such an appeal ex gratia."The complainant addressed an appeal to the decision- making authority" before the expiry of ninety days from the date of the original decision and the Secretary-General's answer was to uphold that decision. So it is fair to take the ninety days as running from the date of confirmation and treat the complaint as filed in time."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 873
Keywords:
complaint; internal appeal; no provision; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time limit;
Judgment 1081
70th Session, 1991
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The fact "that the measure under challenge affects several groups of staff and is therefore general in purport [...] does not in itself make the complaints irreceivable: decisions do not need to be individual to be challengeable before the Tribunal. As Article VII(2) of the Tribunal's Statute makes plain, a general decision too is challengeable. That article sets the time limit for filing a complaint against 'a decision affecting a class of officials', in other words a general decision. Yet that does not mean that a complaint challenging any sort of general decision will necessarily be receivable: there is also the rule in VII(1) that the internal means of redress must have been exhausted."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) AND (2) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; condition; date; general decision; iloat statute; individual decision; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 1075
70th Session, 1991
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant's appointment was terminated by an agreement both parties reached under Article 11.16 of the Staff Regulations. He submits that the agreement is null and void because he signed it under duress. The Tribunal holds that the only pressure the ILO applied on him was the setting of a time limit (one day according to the complainant, two days according to the administration), but there was nothing improper in that.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 11.16 OF THE ILO STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
lack of consent; time limit;
Judgment 1064
70th Session, 1991
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2, Summary
Extract:
On 3 April 1990 the complainant filed an application for interpretation of Judgment 972, which was delivered on 27 June 1989. Neither the Statute nor the Rules of Court set any time limit for the filing of such applications (see Judgment 538). The Tribunal will look at the circumstances in which a claim is made before deciding what constitutes a reasonable time. In the instant case the complainant is not guilty of such delay as to make his application irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 538
Keywords:
application for interpretation; no provision; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 1052
69th Session, 1990
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant got word of the decision not to renew his contract before receiving formal notification. "The only date that matters for the purpose of reckoning the time limit in [Article] VII(2) [of the Tribunal's Statute] is the date of formal notification of the final decision in writing."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(2) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
complaint; date of notification; decision; formal requirements; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time limit;
Judgment 1046
69th Session, 1990
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant was transferred on 1 February 1988. On 5 February he got notice that his contract would not be renewed because of an unsatisfactory report concerning his new assignment. The Tribunal holds that "it was incumbent on the [organization] to give him a fair trial in the job, and [...] to ask after the lapse of only four days for an immediate replacement was to act with undue haste."
Keywords:
contract; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; reasonable time; time limit; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
Judgment 1039
69th Session, 1990
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant lodged two internal appeals against the decision not to renew her appointment. Her first appeal, which she submitted directly to the Board, was irreceivable because under paragraph 7(a) she ought first to have addressed her claim to the Director-General. The second appeal, which she did address to the Director-General, was out of time by one day. There having been no waiver of the time limit under paragraph 8 of the Statutes, her complaint is irreceivable.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: PARAGRAPHS 7(A) AND 8 OF THE STATUTES OF THE UNESCO APPEALS BOARD
Keywords:
formal requirements; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1022
69th Session, 1990
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant relies on an acquired right to three months' notice as stipulated in her contract. The organization gave her six months' notice. "There is an acquired right only where an amendment to the material rules that is to the official's detriment disrupts the structure of the contract or impairs the fundamental terms of employment that induced him to take up duty with the organization." That condition is plainly not met in the instant case.
Keywords:
acquired right; contract; notice; termination of employment; terms of appointment; time limit;
Considerations 9-10, Summary
Extract:
The Staff Rules provide for a two-month period of consideration to allow the official to decide whether or not to accept the transfer offer. But the decision notified to the complainant failed to allow the two-month limit and was therefore tainted by a formal flaw. As the flaw does not go to the essence of the decision, the Tribunal held that the organization was liable on technical grounds.
Keywords:
flaw; formal flaw; time limit; transfer;
Judgment 1021
69th Session, 1990
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
Vide Judgment 1022, consideration 5.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1022
Keywords:
acquired right; contract; notice; termination of employment; terms of appointment; time limit;
Judgment 1020
69th Session, 1990
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
After initially accepting the organization's offer of transfer made in connection with its headquarters move, the complainants changed their minds. Their appointments were then terminated. The organization calculated the period of notice as if they had turned the transfer offers down from the start. The complainants argue that the period of notice must run from the day they made their position known and that they are therefore entitled to compensation. The Tribunal holds that such an interpretation runs counter to the applicable provisions since the organization's intention was to treat all staff members who refused the offer of transfer in the same way, whatever the date of their refusal.
Keywords:
compensatory allowance; compensatory measure; notice; refusal; start of time limit; termination of employment; time limit; transfer; transfer of headquarters;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 | next >
|
